PcM Question 7 & 10

Comments

6 comments

  • Avatar
    Christine Williamson Cronin

    Rebecca - I struggled with the very same two questions, and I did exactly what you did: asked licensed colleagues and mentors for insight. They said the same thing as your colleagues and mentors. I made a “note to self” about ncarb’s interpretation in the unlikely event the same or similar questions appeared on my actual exams and just moved on. I don’t know if that really helps you, but at least you know you’re not the only candidate who disagreed with ncarb’s take.

    Christine Williamson

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Rebecca Barnes

    Christine - Thank you for your insight and comments. I would answer A to question 10 in hindsight, but never B.  And that has been my knowledge since working in hotel and restaurants a good portion of my adult life (not as a design professional) and all the other individuals I asked today about the question. Hopefully NCARB will drop in their own comments in this section like they have with other questions asked in the blog today. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    NCARB

    Hello Rebecca,

    For question 7, the item writer was referencing a specific regulation from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from the Department of Labor regarding time limits for filing a charge. These time limits relate to both harassment and discrimination claims. Even though the response just lists harassment, both would apply to this policy. There is however ambiguity in response B that could also make it correct since the requirements for providing reasonable accommodations for workers religious holidays varies by company size and state laws.

    For question 10, the rationale is to prevent a possible negligent referral claim against the former employer if the new employer hires the individual and harassment occurs. Since the harassment incidents are noted as being well documented, the firm would be at a higher risk of the negligent referral claim than they would of a defamation claim.

    For both of these items I've flagged them for review by our item writing volunteer architects. They will take a look at the comments brought up here and incorporate any updates on a future version of the practice exam.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Jennifer E Mehler-Rardin

    I flagged these two questions for the same reasons as the other commenters here and reached out to my mentors with experience in this area. All were surprised by NCARB’s wording and justification. Too much room for interpretation on these. Not to mention a misleading and troubling message implied by the answer to 7! Doesn’t the EEOC regulation establish the time limit, not the firm? I do hope NCARB reconsiders and updates the wording.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Emily Zahner

    I came here to dispute these very same two questions. I find question 7 especially troubling and I see how the question is over both "discrimination and harassment" yet the "correct answer" specifically discusses the time limit on sexual harassment. Thank you NCARB for flagging these questions for review, as I believe this policy or any future policies implemented such as this is very harmful and a step backward from discrimination and equality as the implication is not sided with the victim. I have also discussed this with many colleagues who feel the same as I and the others leaving comments. Thank you

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Michael Ermann

    When I get a reference request for someone I wouldn’t hire I reply, “I can confirm that he went to school here but decline to elaborate based on the advice of legal counsel” …you didn’t have to share sensitive student or employee information and, unless they are really stupid, the new firm can read between the lines

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Powered by Zendesk